Mississippi Supreme Court, 1934

Wallace v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court · Decided June 5, 1934 · Smith

155 So. 197; 170 Miss. 457; 1934 Miss. LEXIS 152 (Southern Reporter)

Counsel

Broom Shipman, of Jackson, for appellant. Where the defendant has put his general reputation in issue, particular offenses to impeach him may not be shown. Herring v. State, 84 So. 699, 122 Miss. 647 . The rule condemning proof of separate and distinct offenses other than the one for which accused is being tried is clearly stated in the case of Baygents v. State, 110 So. 114 , in which the court said: "We think the admission of these confessions of the commission of a subsequent and a wholly disconnected crime was an error of such character as to require the reversal of the judgment of the court below. The general rule is that proof of a crime distinct from that alleged in the indictment should not be admitted in evidence against the accused." W.D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state. Evidence of general reputation is admissible in criminal cases, but the evidence relating to such general character should be confined to the particular trait involved in the nature of the charge against the defendant. Westbrooks v. State, 76 Miss. 710 . Neither the defendant, in offering proof as to his good reputation, and the state in offering the contrary, did not limit the inquiry to the liquor laws — both wanting his general reputation for being a law-abiding citizen — and not particularly with reference to the prohibition laws. Since the inquiry was so broad, there seems to be nothing along this line that the defendant can complain of here.

Opinion of the Court

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was convicted of having intoxicating liquor in his possession, the evidence as to which was conflicting.

*459 He introduced evidence to the effect that his reputation "as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen” was good. The state introduced evidence in rebuttal thereof, and one of its witnesses said that he (meaning the appellant) "has a reputation of being a bootlegger,” i. e., one who carries liquor about on his person -for sale in violation of law.

A motion to exclude this evidence was overruled. The brief of counsel for the appellant is addressed solely to this ruling.

The appellant having put his character in issue, the state had the right to introduce evidence relative thereto, particularly as to the trait of character involved in the commission of the crime charged. Bootlegging of intoxicating liquor necessarily implies possession thereof by the bootlegger. Consequently, for one to have the reputation of being a bootlegger necessarily includes the reputation of possessing intoxicating liquor. The appellant’s specific contention is that the evidence necessarily implies that he had been guilty of other violations of the liquor laws, and was therefore incompetent under the rule forbidding the introduction of evidence of other specific offenses disconnected from ■ the one under consideration. This may be true, but no further than would have been the case had the witness said that his reputation for possessing liquor in violation of the law was bad.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.